237 A.D. 467 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1933
The order should be affirmed upon the ground that the defenses and the counterclaim set up in the amended answer of the defendants Roberts are insufficient as a matter of law. These parties are mortgagor-defendants in an action to foreclose a real
Upon this record it is clear that defendants Hadley could not set up the defense of usury; that defendants Roberts have waived any such defense which they may have had as mortgagors or might now have as final grantees. (Gen. Business Law, §§ 373, 377; Smith v. Cross, 16 Hun, 487; Beecher v. Ackerman, 1 Abb. Pr. [N. S.] 141; Bennett v. Bates, 94 N. Y. 354, 371; Harrington v. Slade, 22 Barb. 161; Morris v. Floyd, 5 id. 130; Shufelt v. Shufelt, 9 Paige Ch. 137; Berdan v. Sedgwick, 40 Barb. 359; Schermerhorn v. Taiman, 14 N. Y. 93; 27 R. C. L. 288, 289; Clark Investment Co. v. Cunningham, 108 Kan. 703.)
The condition in the order appealed from, which has been accepted by respondent, is entirely to the advantage of appellants and is not a subject of reasonable complaint by them.
All concur.
Order and judgment affirmed, with costs.